3 ms·

I'm not sure if its some weird attempt to engage reactionaries or what, but, while I agree with Dillon here that Markets commodify things, this thing with Eliza

I'm not sure if its some weird attempt to engage reactionaries or what, but, while I agree with Dillon here that Markets commodify things, this thing with Elizabeth Gilbert and the Ukraine thing is a big nothing burger which, I think, really undermines the whole piece. She voluntarily delayed the publication of a novel because of a war. I happen to think this is a little goofy, but its hardly an outrage against free speech or anything. I like free speech, but just because someone chooses not to say something does not mean an attack on free speech has been made. Decorum is not censorship, peer pressure is not censorship, blah blah blah. As with most things, I think we ought to take free speech most seriously when powerful actors (states, multinational corporations, terrorist groups, others willing to use violence) target the realm of ideas to get or maintain power. If only things were always so cut and dry, but I think delaying the publication of "The Snow Forest" is a pretty weird place to start this essay.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
klodolph 3y ago
The fact that it is voluntary is kinda beside the point. If you define "free speech" in such a way that you draw a line somewhere, you're missing out on a way to talk about some of the more insidious ways that our society polices speech. Peer pressure is not censorship, but we still need to talk about it.
- nathan_compton 3y ago
  Your comment is sort of self contradictory. > in such a way that you draw a line somewhere, you're missing out on a way to talk about some of the more insidious ways that our society polices speech > Peer pressure is not censorship, but we still need to talk about it. Right - we can talk about it as peer pressure. We don't need to group all modulations of the public discourse as "violations" of "free speech" or "failures" to support "free speech."
  - klodolph 3y ago
    Comments like these are easily my least favorite kind of comments on Hacker News. Rather than trying to understand the meaning of what people say, in the articles or in the comments, we get caught up in having arguments about what the definition of some particular term is, or what the right term to communicate some concept is. I think the correct response to seeing a comment that appears "self-contradictory" is to read it again, and see if there is some alternative meaning behind the comment that makes sense--some interpretation other than our first impression. That's what we do with literature, and I don't think we should be lowering our standards for reading comprehension just because we're online.
soneca 3y ago
I think the delaying of the publication of “The Snow Forest”, more exactly, the actions and words of the author about it, was an excellent place to start this essay. It pretty effectively construct the context to culminate in the sentence: ” How did a heartfelt writer like Elizabeth Gilbert come to adopt the neutered rhetoric of brand management?” Which is a great summarization of the point that the author is going to discuss in the way they want to discuss it. That artists are not bad, or evil, but they are doing art with the emptiness of corporations’ public relations. I read it as a brilliant way to start an essay. It introduces the topic with a concrete example that provides context of what the author is going to talk about, in a short, straightforward form (unlike, e.g. how the New Yorker tends do these introductions, with long, writer-centered ramblings). I saw no intention of fabricating outrage or t baiting in this introduction at all. Not a single drop of it to be honest. Much less that is supposed to be pointing to the fact that this example is something big, strong to any side of the current ideological disputes. On the contrary, it is there just to show how empty it all is. Irrelevant one-Star reviews, about irrelevant concerns of association to the current war, followed by an irrelevant stance, justified with an irrelevant speech, all coming together to become an irrelevant act of pseudo-activism. All so empty. Which is the whole point.
- nathan_compton 3y ago
  " In other words, she says as little as possible, passing on the easy opportunity to defend her right to free expression and anyone’s right to read or not read whatever they want, both of which are currently and repeatedly threatened in Russia, Ukraine and the United States." I'd agree with you except for this sentence, which frames the controversy as about free speech.
  - soneca 3y ago
    I disagree. It just says that the essay author thinks there was an opportunity for the book author to do a real act of activism. Yet, they still chose emptiness. It is just there, in my view, to strengthen the argument that it was not the context that made it empty, it was a choice. It doesn’t frame the controversy as about free speech at all, in my opinion.
sandworm101 3y ago
All publicity is publicity. This delay means i now know the title of the book. Yesturday, i did not know that the book existed. Through all the debate, I see a sucessful marketing strategy.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
LanzVonL 3y ago
[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

klodolph 3y ago

The fact that it is voluntary is kinda beside the point. If you define "free speech" in such a way that you draw a line somewhere, you're missing out on a way to talk about some of the more insidious ways that our society polices speech. Peer pressure is not censorship, but we still need to talk about it.

nathan_compton 3y ago
Your comment is sort of self contradictory. > in such a way that you draw a line somewhere, you're missing out on a way to talk about some of the more insidious ways that our society polices speech > Peer pressure is not censorship, but we still need to talk about it. Right - we can talk about it as peer pressure. We don't need to group all modulations of the public discourse as "violations" of "free speech" or "failures" to support "free speech."
- klodolph 3y ago
  Comments like these are easily my least favorite kind of comments on Hacker News. Rather than trying to understand the meaning of what people say, in the articles or in the comments, we get caught up in having arguments about what the definition of some particular term is, or what the right term to communicate some concept is. I think the correct response to seeing a comment that appears "self-contradictory" is to read it again, and see if there is some alternative meaning behind the comment that makes sense--some interpretation other than our first impression. That's what we do with literature, and I don't think we should be lowering our standards for reading comprehension just because we're online.

soneca 3y ago

I think the delaying of the publication of “The Snow Forest”, more exactly, the actions and words of the author about it, was an excellent place to start this essay. It pretty effectively construct the context to culminate in the sentence: ” How did a heartfelt writer like Elizabeth Gilbert come to adopt the neutered rhetoric of brand management?” Which is a great summarization of the point that the author is going to discuss in the way they want to discuss it. That artists are not bad, or evil, but they are doing art with the emptiness of corporations’ public relations. I read it as a brilliant way to start an essay. It introduces the topic with a concrete example that provides context of what the author is going to talk about, in a short, straightforward form (unlike, e.g. how the New Yorker tends do these introductions, with long, writer-centered ramblings). I saw no intention of fabricating outrage or t baiting in this introduction at all. Not a single drop of it to be honest. Much less that is supposed to be pointing to the fact that this example is something big, strong to any side of the current ideological disputes. On the contrary, it is there just to show how empty it all is. Irrelevant one-Star reviews, about irrelevant concerns of association to the current war, followed by an irrelevant stance, justified with an irrelevant speech, all coming together to become an irrelevant act of pseudo-activism. All so empty. Which is the whole point.

nathan_compton 3y ago
" In other words, she says as little as possible, passing on the easy opportunity to defend her right to free expression and anyone’s right to read or not read whatever they want, both of which are currently and repeatedly threatened in Russia, Ukraine and the United States." I'd agree with you except for this sentence, which frames the controversy as about free speech.
- soneca 3y ago
  I disagree. It just says that the essay author thinks there was an opportunity for the book author to do a real act of activism. Yet, they still chose emptiness. It is just there, in my view, to strengthen the argument that it was not the context that made it empty, it was a choice. It doesn’t frame the controversy as about free speech at all, in my opinion.

sandworm101 3y ago

All publicity is publicity. This delay means i now know the title of the book. Yesturday, i did not know that the book existed. Through all the debate, I see a sucessful marketing strategy.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

LanzVonL 3y ago

[dead]